What defense might an adjuster use if a claimant was partially responsible for their own injuries?

The correct choice is comparative negligence, which serves as a legal principle allowing for the allocation of fault between parties involved in an incident. When a claimant is partially responsible for their own injuries, comparative negligence allows an adjuster to assess the percentage of responsibility attributed to each party.

In this situation, if the claimant is determined to be partly at fault for the accident, the adjuster can reduce the compensation awarded to the claimant based on their percentage of fault. For example, if the claimant is found to be 30% responsible for their injuries, their compensation may be diminished by that percentage. This approach encourages fair resolution by recognizing that multiple factors can contribute to the outcome of an incident.

Other defenses, such as full negligence or contributory negligence, may not adequately address the shared responsibility aspect that comparative negligence encapsulates. Full negligence would imply that one party is entirely at fault, while contributory negligence traditionally prevents a claimant from recovering damages if they are found to have any fault at all. No negligence disregards any responsibility towards the claim, which would not apply in a scenario where the claimant holds some degree of fault. Thus, comparative negligence provides a more balanced and equitable framework for dealing with claims involving shared responsibility.